The essays are linked from LJ’s home page. Many thanks to LJ’s Mike Kelley and his colleagues for handling this so well.
I myself am very open to a compromise on forking. The DPLA could agree to do the fork in X number of months and meanwhile be more open about its activities, especially in regard to the Steering Committee and other gatherings, both the in-person and virtual varieties.
The end result? A public system focused on serving the needs of society at large (especially in regard to matters like K-12 and access in all senses of the word). And an academic side focused on campus needs, including high-level research. Of course, the forking would happen with extensive cooperation between publibs and and academics—including overlapping boards, content exchanges, consolidated discovery, and universal accessibility for both systems.
In regard to openness and participation, the beta sprint is a great example of the possibilities. The more input the DPLA gets from the public (especially early on), the better—whether we’re talking about interfaces or governance!
Update, May 24: We’re in favor of a shared technological-services organization, and tech is a heavy focus of the current DPLA. So even after forking, the present progress would continue smoothly—in fact, more so because the techies could more precisely target user needs without lumping academics and publibs together.
- Thumbs up on the DPLA beta sprint, just so the group will also open up in other ways, ASAP, such as public meetings of the Steering Committee
- DPLA now considering separate academic and public library systems, and meanwhile the first Beta Sprint deadline is nearing—June 15
- Ingenious beta catalog interface—good for academics and other serious users—in newest Beta Sprint video from DPLA
- Hacking a secretive ‘public’ library group: Let’s ask DPLA steering committee members how they voted—and about open meetings vs. a Porcellian Club approach
- On the eve of the DPLA meeting